How many wars the US has not been involved in? rather, how many wars the US has been involved in? US tries to be world's policeman who can't keep laws and order within its bounds. If it does not suit the US, they just change it or withdrew from it eg WHO...
China's SCS Strategy Thread
- Thread starter lilzz
- Start date
How many wars the US has not been involved in? rather, how many wars the US has been involved in? US tries to be world's policeman who can't keep laws and order within its bounds. If it does not suit the US, they just change it or withdrew from it eg WHO...
Benevolent power.
I feel there's going to be a lot of pain for Australia from now on. It is ridiculous really, what does Australia hope to gain from being such a loyal vassal state if the USA?
After all USA took their market share the last time their thumbed their nose at china. This declaration does nothing for them strategically except win short term point scoring for USA. But it'll ruined the already rubbish relationship with China.
In the long run, who cares whether or not the OZ accept or reject China's claim!
Australia rejects Beijing's South China Sea claims, backing US
15 HOURS AGO
Rest of the article:
After all USA took their market share the last time their thumbed their nose at china. This declaration does nothing for them strategically except win short term point scoring for USA. But it'll ruined the already rubbish relationship with China.
In the long run, who cares whether or not the OZ accept or reject China's claim!
Australia rejects Beijing's South China Sea claims, backing US
15 HOURS AGO
Rest of the article:
Funny because Australia seems silent on Taiwan's 11 dash line claim that match China and control on taiping island. Also Vietnam's claim that is rough 80% of china's.
Australia is and should be able to act as it sees fit. This is the path they prefer. Trade relations will further degrade between Australia and China and so it should as well seeing as both have gone their way. The economic pain is going to be bad for Australians in the medium to long term but their thinking is walking a balance between economic benefits and perceived national security. This decision and blunder is theirs to make.
Well, the general misconception these countries have is that they think China is a vicious hawkish warlike nation that is only acting peaceful because it does have the power to exert itself. But the reality is the opposite. China is not a hawk by nature, and if she can get away with peaceful subtlety, she will only invest bear minimum in military just to address dire threats. However, China has no problem spending a lot more and becoming a much more hawkish and aggressive nation.
Of course, there is also another view point: The US and the Five Eyes knew very well that China is a peaceful and dove nation. But they've only recently realized that having China remain a dove and non-aggressive nation is strategically bad for the US and the Five Eyes in the long run. So they are trying to turn China into an hawkish nation that overspend on military and disrupts her peaceful rise.
My problem with this is that this whole narrative is a trap for these English-Speaking stubborn people. Right now is actually a great time for China to start rising its military spending, from the point of view of the overall economical development of the nation. China needs to upgrade its entire industry. If she remains on good and peaceful term with the USA, she will be locked in her usual place in the global supply chain. She will need to let her budding high-end industries compete on an equal footing with the West, especially with the US in a global market (everywhere including China's own market). It will be a difficult uphill battle for China, one which the West has been and would be in an extremely strong position to suppress Chinese emerging high end industry in a globalized world common market.
with the decoupling initiated by the US, China is actually take back a lot of its domestic market for free, because the US is willingly withdrawing. Just look at how the Chinese internet companies survived and thrived, while the Japanese and European ones basically got ran out of business by US juggernauts. The like of Tencent, Alibaba and Bilibili would have long been crushed by the US companies, had China not erected a "Great Fire Wall" with a political excuse.
Yes, I almost forgot about that. This just showed the hypocrisy of the Australian's stance. It clearly is driven by USA. I mean, China's claimed is nothing new. So why didn't they reject China's claim earlier in the past 50 years or more? And as you said, China's claim follows that of Republic of China (ie: Taiwan). Yet another inconvient truth they seem to have a hard job remembering. And if course all the other Asian countries claim as well.
"Australia is and should be able to act as it sees fit."
This sounds so wrong to me. Are they acting as they see fit? Or is there pressure from elsewhere preventing them from acting in their own best interest?
As I said earlier, none of this makes any logical sense. National security? Give me strength, when was the last time Chinese troops set foot in Australia? All these Chinese bogeyman stuff is really uncalled for, just like the yellow perils of the 20th century. It's about time Australians treat China as a friend instead of the enemy.
How's sending Australian navy half way around the world, and make statement like this to poke at the eye of your biggest trading partner, who have not done you any harm, is somehow in Australia's interest?
Another barbarians showing up in China shores from thousands of kilometers away thrumping their chest, waving their flags and shouting freedom of navigation.
They are no different from the ancient Xiongno barbs and Mongolian hordes. Just like the ancient times, the Middle Kingdom must defend against these barbarians.